Subject: Linux-Misc Digest #821
From: Digestifier <Linux-Misc-Request@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Linux-Misc@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU
Date:     Wed, 16 Mar 94 09:13:09 EST

Linux-Misc Digest #821, Volume #1                Wed, 16 Mar 94 09:13:09 EST

Contents:
  XF86_Mach32 2.1 does not work with Intel Motherboards!!!!!!! (aaaaauuuugh) (Clint Olsen)
  Re: An idea to cut down noise (Paul Gosse)
  Re: HELP: adding users in linux (John F. Haugh II)
  Re: *** DON'T READ THIS BEFORE POSTING *** (Ron Smits)
  Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux). (Bill Campbell)
  Re: DEC pc's (Jack Coyote)
  Re: Which Linux Distribution to choose? (Clint Olsen)
  Re: DOOM for X (Doug DeJulio)
  Re: Real APL ? (Doug DeJulio)
  Linux configuration (Chung-Shih CHEN)
  Which distribution installs from CDROM or Hard-disk. (Mihail Stilianov Iotov)
  Real APL ? (Dong-Ping Deng)
  Re: Prepare for DOOM (parody) (Steven Yampolsky)
  Re: BSD vs. Linux (Amancio Hasty Jr)
  IBM MCA and Novell Netware [ (Nick Maclaren)
  Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux). (Ramiro Estrugo)
  Re: Linux gets in print! (Alexander Bottema)
  Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux). (Henry van Cleef)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Clint Olsen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: XF86_Mach32 2.1 does not work with Intel Motherboards!!!!!!! (aaaaauuuugh)
Date: 16 Mar 1994 02:41:46 GMT

I have had about 20 replies about this in the past, and I just cannot get
this X server to work correctly.  NOBODY has had any ideas about
what is wrong.  Doesn't anyone out there have an Intel motherboard that
works with this?????  Someone at least confirm the existence of a problem.
I'm tired of being the loner here.

I just installed XFree86 2.1 and the results I had came out _worse_ than
it did before with 2.1.

Not only do I not have a working cursor (software or hardware cursor settings)
the screen redrawing is totally mangled.  I pull up a menu in twm, only
the border of the menu selector appears and I have to drag it down in
order for things to appear.  It also clobbers windows in the background
and the windows are not redrawn correctly.

The mouse is totally screwed.  In software mode, the "X" only appears at
the edges of the screen.  In hardware cursor mode, I get this annoying
white rectangular block.

Does anyone know if I can fix this?  I've been waiting for someone with
a similar configuration to say something.  Linux isn't very useful with
X-windows.

Intel Motherboard (ATI GUP onboard, with AIC 6260 SCSI onboard)
32 Meg RAM

Xconfig: /usr/X386/lib/X11/Xconfig
(**) stands for supplied, (--) stands for probed/default values
(**) Mouse: type: MouseMan, device: /dev/mouse, baudrate: 1200
Warning: The directory "/usr/X386/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/" does not exist.
         Entry deleted from font path.
Warning: 'fonts.dir' not found (or not valid) in
        "/usr/X386/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo/".
          Entry deleted from font path.
          (Run 'mkfontdir' on "/usr/X386/lib/X11/fonts/Speedo/").
(**) FontPath set to "/usr/X386/lib/X11/fonts/misc/,/usr/X386/lib/X11/
                        fonts/75dpi/,/usr/X386/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/"
(**) Mach32: Option "sw_cursor"
(**) Mach32: Option "dac_8_bit"
(--) Mach32: card type: localbus (486)
(**) Mach32: Number of Clocks: 32
(**) Mach32: clocks:  89.50 126.10  82.00  36.10  50.40  56.70   0.00 44.90
(**) Mach32: clocks: 135.10  32.10 109.80  85.90  40.00  58.10  75.40 64.90
(**) Mach32: clocks:  44.75  63.05  41.00  18.05  25.20  28.35   0.00 22.45
(**) Mach32: clocks:  67.55  16.05  54.90  42.95  20.00  29.05  37.70 32.45
(--) Mach32: Maximum allowed dot-clock: 135MHz
(**) Mach32: Mode "1024x768": mode clock =  75.000, clock used =  75.400
(**) Mach32: Virtual resolution: 1024x768
(--) Mach32: videoram: 2048k
(**) Mach32: Using software cursor
(--) Mach32: Using 4 MB aperture
(--) Mach32: Ramdac is ATI68875/TLC34075/Bt885
(**) Mach32: Using 8 bits per RGB value
(--) Mach32: Aperture mapped to 0x2000000 + 0x0
(--) Mach32: Pixmap cache: 2 256x256 slots, 8 128x128 slots, 32 64x64 slots
(--) Mach32: Font cache: 16 fonts

-Clint
--
Clint Olsen
University of Washington
Electrical Engineering
olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu

------------------------------

From: paulg@cs.mun.ca (Paul Gosse)
Subject: Re: An idea to cut down noise
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 1994 17:05:47 GMT

ron@draconia.hacktic.nl (Ron Smits) writes:

[mucho deleted]

>I like this idea alot!! good thinking (tm). The problem Greg mentions about

Opinions of people on the net are valued.  Input from persons is essential
in the transfer of idea.

But please Ron, the traffic of this group is high enough.  Please don't
quote an entire article to say "I agree".


Paul "itty-bitty-picky-person" Gosse
-- 
                  Paul Gosse == paulg@maple.cs.mun.ca
"Troubles are like babies; they only grow by nursing."

------------------------------

From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: HELP: adding users in linux
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 04:47:31 GMT

>Howvever, the system refuses to acknowledge the existence of the user. I 
>tried using the passwd command to change the password of the user, but I get 
>a response that "'username' user unknown". The home directory gets created, 
>and entries are made into the passwd and shadow files but the user's account 
>isn't created. I tried editting the actual passwd and shadow file, and it 
>still won't recognize the existence of the user.

What does pwck say?  Also, do you have /etc/passwd.dir or /etc/passwd.pag
somehow?

>If anyone can help, please e-mail me instructions and on how to add users. I 
>read the man page and all the documentation I can find, and still no luck. I 
>even tried getting the source for adduser. I compiled it and when I tried 
>running it, I get a message that adduser is obsolete and that I need to use 
>useradd instead.

It sounds like you did everything you should do.  My best guess is just
that the software wasn't configured correctly when it was compiled.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

------------------------------

From: ron@draconia.hacktic.nl (Ron Smits)
Subject: Re: *** DON'T READ THIS BEFORE POSTING ***
Date: 14 Mar 1994 12:49:08 GMT

Wolfgang Schelongowski (ws@xivic.bo.open.de) wrote:
: bhogan@crl.com (Bill Hogan) writes:

: >   If you have a question, just ask it!

: DON'T. comp.os.linux.* is flooded enough.

: >   (A great scientist was once asked if he had found the answer. "Answers
: > are relatively easy", said the Professor, "finding the right question,
: > that's the hard part.")

: That's why you should sit back, think, RTFM etc., get local help ...
: before posting. Then you will either have solved your problem or found
: the right question. Wasting bandwidth and time of _other_ people without
: efforts on your own is not only rude, it will make these newsgroups
: write-only (i.e. dead) newsgroups.

: --
: Wolfgang Schelongowski  ws@xivic.bo.open.de

: "Don't try the paranormal until you know what's normal."
:   -- Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

--

At  the moment many  people who are totally  unknown to Unix/Linux and
the net are switching over to Linux and are getting access by either a
provider  like hacktic in the Netherlands  or because the company they
work  for starts to  provide  it.  These people  usually  don't have a
faintest  clue where to start  looking  for FAQ's,  Readme's or  local
help. In my immediate surroundings I can  name at least fifteen people
who have started using Linux in the last year, mainly because they see
the possibilities  of it on my  system.  The closest that these people
have seen of datacommunication is  a BBS. I  can usually help them out
(their system is  after all a software clone  of my system) So  at the
moment   they don't see   the   need to go   to   these groups to  get
assistance.

These people  need to be  assisted  to have  _*fun*_ with  Linux,  and
scaring them away  when their first posting is  answered  by some rude
flame or a form letter from some automated moderator stating that they
have   been a bad   boy:) is  a   sure way  of  killing  the more then
expontential growth of Linux.

I don't  mind answering  questions  here on  the net   and I  have the
feeling that their are  a lot of people   that don't mind  reading and
answering  questions. I  think that   the people  who  are so terribly
concerning about the flood of questions from newbies and get irritated
about it  should  think about  not reading the  col.help and  col.misc
group. Maybe a new group should br created for them where they can sit
back and relax   not being disturbed  by the  numerous and re-occuring
questions of newbies. 

I have  stated  it  before  in other   postings the  last weeks,  keep
col.help the way it is, keep answering questions  from newbies and not
so newbies, and keep  reminding them in an  easy, friendly and polite!
manner of the existance of FAQ's, Readme's and HOWTO's. 

just my nickle's worth (Here in the Netherlands we don't have cents anymore)

                Ron Smits
                ron@draconia.hacktic.nl
                Ron.Smits@Netherlands.NCR.COM

/*-( My opinions are my opinions, My boss's opinions are his opinions )-*/
/*-(                They might not be the same                         -*/


------------------------------

From: bill@camco.celestial.com (Bill Campbell)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,biz.sco.general
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux).
Date: 15 Mar 1994 20:13:58 -0800

In <2m5bd7$555@ftp.health.org> nathan@ftp.health.org (Nathan Bardsley) writes:

:In article <d0bpl.763777041@dtek.chalmers.se>,
:Patrik Larsson <d0bpl@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:

:>   What are the pros and cons for SCO-unix in general, and
:>compared to AIX (and maybe Linux) in particular?

:SCO is a nice system if all you're going to do is to run their
:software.  If you want to compile your own applications or develope
:some inhouse networking apps, good luck.  The SCO developement
:package is, in a word, crippled.

I would disagree with this, at least for the current DevSys.  I
have very little trouble compiling most net.sources (many
available on my system ftp.celestial.com).  The only thing that
seems to cause problems is mmdf, and I'm using smail3.1.28 so
that doesn't bother me at all.  There were some difficulties with
the older systems (about 2-3 years ago), but these have been
cleared up with ODT 2.0 and ODT 3.0 DevSys.

Bill
-- 
INTERNET:  bill@Celestial.COM   Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
UUCP:   ...!thebes!camco!bill   8545 SE 68th Street
                   camco!bill   Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?

------------------------------

From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: DEC pc's
Date: 15 Mar 1994 21:05:26 GMT
Reply-To: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)

In comp.os.linux.misc,
millar@teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk (Matthew C Millar) writes:
>
>Can anyone comment on using DEC PC's with Linux?

Yes.

They work just fine.

-- 
"If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you drive down to the bottom in
 your Jeep and go through everyone elses wallets just to see if there was
 anything worth keeping? "
                                    -- Meryn Cadell, "Steam Clean Express"

------------------------------

From: olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu (Clint Olsen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Which Linux Distribution to choose?
Date: 16 Mar 1994 04:37:11 GMT

In article <2lqq01$fqe@valhalla.cs.wright.edu>,
student_of_mrizki <ceg4760x@kiwi.cs.wright.edu> wrote:
>Hi Guys
>   I'm thinking of installing Linux on my PC in the near future.  I don't
>know which distribution is the least buggy.
>    I have a 486/66 with 8 MB ram.  I'll have about 150MB fre for linux
>and will be needing X-windows.
>    I know that the FAQ suggests not using the SLS, but which one should I
>get ?
>                                Thanx upfront.

I recommend Slackware wholeheartedly.  Any problems that have come
up have been promplty fixed by Pat V.  You may want to wait a bit,
because I think his new release with the 1.0 kernel is imminent.

The other distribution that may be worth looking at is Debian, but
I don't think it has matured yet to a fully stable distribution.

Comments?

-Clint
--
Clint Olsen
University of Washington
Electrical Engineering
olsenc@maxwell.ee.washington.edu

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.os.386bsd.apps
From: ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Re: DOOM for X
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 04:44:47 GMT

In article <2lrtvn$icf@daisy.cc.utexas.edu>,
David Taylor <ddt@daisy.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>The bad news: I hope y'all don't mind if I restrict the ports to
>keyboard input.

Ugh.  I can't play Doom with the keyboard.  I can't get fine enough
control.

Ah well, it's not a big handicap, since I'll always be able to boot
back into DOS to play it.

-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu

------------------------------

From: ddj+@cs.cmu.edu (Doug DeJulio)
Subject: Re: Real APL ?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 04:49:18 GMT

In article <DENG.94Mar14184326@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov>,
Dong-Ping Deng <deng@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov> wrote:
>Is there a good interface for APL?  It's a pain to use the present
>impletantion in the linux release.

I'd also like to know about it if there is.

I note that someone released an 8x14 APL font for VGA consoles.  I'd
like a *real* APL interpreter, that uses this font to display real APL
on my console, not some unusable unreadable ASCII mock-up.

-- 
Doug DeJulio
ddj+@cmu.edu


------------------------------

From: jasonc@cs.mcgill.ca (Chung-Shih CHEN)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.unix.pc-clone.32-bit
Subject: Linux configuration
Date: 15 Mar 1994 05:23:15 GMT

Hi Net,

I seem to have some questions regarding the Xconfig in slackware...
One has to specify the monitor and videocard that go with the system so
that Xwindows will work properly.  Nevertheless, I seem to have some
problem configuring these two hardware devices.

The monitor is 14" Aamazing Non-interlaced 1024x768 VGA colour monitor
    videocard :   Mach32 Graphics Ultra Plus

Having tried to get the 'closest' information on these two devices, my
openwin still does not work....   PLEASE HELP ME OUT!!!! HELP HELP HELP.

Please mail me your valuable responses regarding my concerns ASAP to
the following address:

jasonc@binkley.cs.mcgill.ca    OR   jchen@ee470.ee.mcgill.ca

or simply post the responses here....

Regards,

Jason
. 


------------------------------

From: iotov@off.ugcs.caltech.edu (Mihail Stilianov Iotov)
Subject: Which distribution installs from CDROM or Hard-disk.
Date: 15 Mar 1994 06:35:33 GMT

I won't to install Linux. As I understand Slackware is recommended but you have
to make floppies if you ftp it. Is there a CD-ROM that lets you install from there ?

I am very new at this and any help will be appreciated.

Thanks,
Miahil Iotov


------------------------------

From: deng@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov (Dong-Ping Deng)
Subject: Real APL ?
Date: 14 Mar 1994 23:43:26 GMT


Is there a good interface for APL?  It's a pain to use the present
impletantion in the linux release.

------------------------------

From: minsk@ccs.neu.edu (Steven Yampolsky)
Subject: Re: Prepare for DOOM (parody)
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 17:02:56 GMT

Peter Suetterlin (pit@lupo.kis.uni-freiburg.de) wrote:
: Jayme (jaymecox@coyote.rain.org) wrote:
: >     Well, it looks like the Doom port to linux (and quite a few
: > other Unix's also) is well on it's way. So I thought I'd just get you ready
: > for it by saying to prepare for at least 100+ articles with such exciting
: > titles as:

: >     HELP! DOOM slow over 14.4!!!
: >     Doom crashes my PPP!
: >     Doom crashes my SLIP!
: >     Doom crashes my Xwindows!
: >     Need XConfig for #9GE for DOOM!
: >     How to run DOOM over Term?!?
: >     Doom won't run on SLS1.0
: >     Doom doesn't work with 0.9.pl10!!! (who cares?!?)
: >     Doom is k00l!!! Play or Die!!

: > and many more!  :^)

: > -- 
: > JaymeCox@rain.org

: > "Angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the
: >  starry dynamo in the machinery of night."  --"Howl" by Allen Ginsberg

: Looks like I should learn how to use killfiles! 

Nope, I don't think there'll be an article with such title.

I think you meant:
        Doom just learned how to kill my processes.



:-)


Steven Y.

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
From: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr)
Subject: Re: BSD vs. Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 1994 07:02:15 GMT

In article <SJA.94Mar14164332@gamma.hut.fi> sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
>> Yes, it does. The Ultrix kernel (for example) has all sorts of cruft
>> in it associated with supporting obsolete terminal hardware and stuff
>> like that. Just for example.

why argue with this guy?

--- The sources are publicly available ---


-- 
FREE unix, gcc, tcp/ip, X, open-look, interviews, tcl/tk, MIME, midi, sound
at  freebsd.cdrom.com:/pub/FreeBSD
Amancio Hasty,  Consultant |
Home: (415) 495-3046       |  
e-mail hasty@netcom.com    |  ftp-site depository of all my work:    
ahasty@cisco.com           |  sunvis.rtpnc.epa.gov:/pub/386bsd/X

------------------------------

From: nmm@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren)
Subject: IBM MCA and Novell Netware [
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:41:20 GMT

Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm@cl.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679
was Re: "Reverse-engineering"]
Keywords: 

In article <1994Mar13.204656.10648.chiark.ijackson@nyx.cs.du.edu>, iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson) writes:
|> 
|> The reason Linux doesn't run support MCA or NetWare is in each case
|> difficulty in obtaining relevant information.  I expect that the same
|> is true of AppleTalk, though a lack of people wanting the facility may
|> well have some impact there.

According to some relevant people in IBM, MCA should be fully documented in
publicly available manuals.  I know that it wasn't at one time, and the myth
persists.  The comments in the Alpha release of the MCS driver imply that it
is lack of time, facilities and incentive that are preventing a complete MCA
port, rather than lack of documentation.

As far as I know, Netware is a totally closed design.  While it would be
easy for someone to become a registered Netware developer and get access
to the information, it would cost real money.  I would be surprised if the
Linux development community feel like paying real money to Novell for the
privilege of supporting their system.


Nick Maclaren
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England.
Email:  nmm@cl.cam.ac.uk
Tel.:   +44 223 334761
Fax:    +44 223 334679

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,biz.sco.general
From: restrugo@netcom.com (Ramiro Estrugo)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux).
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 09:40:08 GMT

Patrik Larsson (d0bpl@dtek.chalmers.se) wrote:
:    A business associate of mine needs information about the
: differences between the various Unixes for PCs (PS/2).


The following is just my opinions and could very possible be wrong.  I
currently use Linux (pl15h :== 1.0 ) and SCO ODT 2.0.

Good points about SCO:
======================

        Commercial third party support.  Pretty much a standard when
it comes to UNIX for pcs.  That means you might be able to get apps
like word perfect and such for it.  

        New versions (ODT 3.0) can runs windows 3.1 and its apps.  An
important thing for some people, it really makes no sense to me.

Bad Points about SCO:
=====================

        Expensive (compared to Linux !) I think the ODT version 3.0
can run for more thand $1000 bucks with full blown development system.

        Resource Hog, as of 2.0 I found that compared to linux, ODT is
a resource hog even with kernel and configuration tweaking.  But i've
heard ODT 3.0 has fixed lots of bugs and enhanced it significantly.
Still I doubt it can outperform linux in raw performance.

Good points about linux:
========================

        Very good performance even under crippled enviroments, and
extremely good performance In a very loaded (resource - wise)
environment.  I think a well equpied linux box can rival more
expensive workstation type boxes costing many thousands of dollars.
Of course this is just a 'feeling' conclusion, no benchmarks done
here...

        Lots of support.  I dont think many other Operating Systems
and their developers produce a new version every few weeks and
sometimes even days.  Also lots of driver support and more on the way.
I think the only hardware not supported is that which has driver
restrictions by the manufacturer which go against Linux's GPL.

        Linux also has a very large and devoted installed base of
users and mostly developers which are eager to help most if the time.
Reading the FAQ and posting to these groups is one of the best tech
support alternatives i've yet seen.

        Support for ELF and COFF binaries is on the way, which means
sometime in the future we ( :-) ) will be able to run SCO binaries and
of course that means the possible availability for apps such as
wordperfect for linux.  Actually a 'good' IDIOT-PROOF (not tex) word
processor is the major reason why I still have a DOS partition.

        Linux does not cost you penny, other than perhaps the media in
which it is stored.  This can be deceiving at first, and I am still
amazed that an OS for free can rival other expensive and famous OS's
such as SCO, Interactive, Coherent... etc...

        Very stable, I really haven't had any problems.  Ive used
SCSI, NEtworking, X-windows for a long time always using the current
kernel version and the only time Ive had a system crash is when I
tried to run DOSEMU .5 --> it had to be....

BAD THINGS ABOUT LINUX:
=======================

        I really can think of anything too evil about it.. If you have
internet and usenet access you've got support so that is not really an
issue , besides the current releases of slackware and such have very
good installation procedures.

        I suppose the downside of linux (to many people including me,
this is really a good thing) is the vast amounts of tinkering and
tweaking involved with it.  But heck, there is no university course
that will teach you UNIX and C Programming any better...



        If any one thinks any of this is wrong or complete bu!!$h!t
feel free to flame me.....

-Ramiro Estrugo
restrugo@netcom.com
-- 
 ##############################################################################
 #                               Ramiro Estrugo                               #
 #               Preferred Email       restrugo@netcom.com                    #
 #               Alternate Email       restrugo@serv7351.scu.edu              #
 ##############################################################################

------------------------------

From: d91a1bo@meryl.csd.uu.se (Alexander Bottema)
Subject: Re: Linux gets in print!
Date: 15 Mar 1994 17:49:55 GMT

>  " What all about all the alternatives to Windows, like NextStep,
> UnixWare, Linux, 386BSD, Coherent or OS/2, that are here now! "
>
>  Nice surprise for us Linux users that we came not only ahead of 386BSD,
> but before OS/2.  However, he listed NextStep and UnixWare first...

Not to mention THE word of evilness. Of course, THAT word is an
epsilon production in my grammar vocabulary.

--
 Alexander Jean-Claude Bottema, Email: d91a1bo@meryl.csd.uu.se
 University of Uppsala, Computing Science Department.
 #include <stddisclam.h>   LINUX,GCC,LISP,ML,CAML-light,Prolog
 sort.c:42: parse error before '}': Bubble sort detected

------------------------------

Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,biz.sco.general
From: vancleef@netcom.com (Henry van Cleef)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted about SCO-unix (vs AIX/Linux).
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 10:22:03 GMT

In article <2m5bd7$555@ftp.health.org> nathan@ftp.health.org (Nathan Bardsley) writes:
>In article <d0bpl.763777041@dtek.chalmers.se>,
>Patrik Larsson <d0bpl@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote:
>
>>   What are the pros and cons for SCO-unix in general, and
>>compared to AIX (and maybe Linux) in particular?
>
>SCO is a nice system if all you're going to do is to run their
>software.  If you want to compile your own applications or develope
>some inhouse networking apps, good luck.  The SCO developement
>package is, in a word, crippled.
>-- 
HUH?!! What's this all about?

SCO Unix/ODT are AT&T System V 3.2.2, a very solid Unix base.  SCO has
added a lot of things to the AT&T distribution.  It is the one Intel
80386/486 Unix that I feel comfortable recommending as a business
platform system.  The bundled ODT systems come with mature versions of
tcp/ip and nfs, and the systems integrate quite easily into networks of
other machines (I have set up SCO system on Sun and Ultrix nets).  The
X11 is as good as any I have seen, and the DOS-under-Unix has a tendency
to work well in all the applications I have tried.  

Dumping on SCO's development system seems to be a popular sport.  The
fact in the matter is that the SCO devsys has three C compilers, two
assemblers, and they have paid a lot of attention to strict compliance
with the popular standards (and some not so popular).  I have
consistently found that the SCO-supplied resources will handle most of
what is thrown at them, including some horrible spaghetti code.  While
some people swear by GCC, I don't find it superior to the SCO compilers,
either in speed of compilation, size and performance of generated
objects, or much of anything else.  I have lived with the resources
supplied with Interactive, Solaris, AIX, and Ultrix, and had far more
trouble will all of them than I have ever had with SCO's development
systems.  

With all due respect, the "free" systems, such as Linux, NetBSD, and
(not free) BSDI are all very well---if you want to play with Unix
itself.  I wouldn't use any of them for a business platform.  

As to the System VR4 touts, (and we had one around here until Dell
packed up and orphaned their system), I will only comment that I have
worked with the AT&T releases for all of the System V's, and would far
rather hang my hat on V.3 for a business than the later system.  

-- 
===================================================================
Hank van Cleef               The Union Institute  History of Science
        E-mail vancleef@netcom.com or vancleef@tmn.com  
===================================================================


------------------------------


** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **

The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:

    Internet: Linux-Misc-Request@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:

    Internet: Linux-Misc@NEWS-DIGESTS.MIT.EDU

Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
    nic.funet.fi				pub/OS/Linux
    tsx-11.mit.edu				pub/linux
    sunsite.unc.edu				pub/Linux

End of Linux-Misc Digest
******************************
